Mudbox 2009 or BodyPaint and ZBrush

#21

Note too that Mudbox2009 has serious video card limitations as they recommend using NVIDIA Quadro workstation cards. They even mention that their commercial gaming cards are not enough.

I think 3d Coat gives far better video performance vs Mudbox 2009 on any given machine.

Don’t get me wrong, Mudbox2009 is a nice program. But as a hobby user, I can’t justify getting a $1000 plus video card, 700 w power supply, etc,etc. Meeting mortgage payments, feeding the family,etc,etc come first, ya know? :slight_smile:

(BTW-I’m using an Athlon64 X2 4400, win xp 32, 3Gb ram, Radeon HD 3670 512Mb ram video card.)

I can see pro users wanting Mudbox2009, but the hardware upgrade and software upgrade is just too rich for many hobby users, no matter how interested they are in Mudbox.

Mudbox 1 was fine for most users. For my uses, I’ll stick to MB1 for sculpturing and paint and sculpture in 3d Coat 3.0.

Just my 2 cents.

#22

My Gaming card tends to work well enough… (32+million polys are workable)

I think 3d Coat gives far better video performance vs Mudbox 2009 on any given machine.

I think you need to recheck your opinion… :slight_smile: MB09 destroys 3DC in terms of performance, and in workflow, they are the only two things MB09 does better than the competition IMO.

But I’m a huge fan of Andrews and 3DC it’s tools and feature-set is amazing especially considering the price. But the current Alpha versions can’t handle anywhere near the polycounts that Mudbox 2009 already does, So I’m not sure of what basis you make the above claims?

Don’t get me wrong, Mudbox2009 is a nice program. But as a hobby user, I can’t justify getting a $1000 plus video card, 700 w power supply, etc,etc. Meeting mortgage payments, feeding the family,etc,etc come first, ya know? :slight_smile:

Yeah i Know it’s a shame that family get in the way of important things like Mudbox… :wink:
As someone without family I’m glad that pro tools that achieve workflow and performance like MB exist where others only add features.

I can see pro users wanting Mudbox2009, but the hardware upgrade and software upgrade is just too rich for many hobby users, no matter how interested they are in Mudbox
.

I agree but that’s why Silo, Blender, 3DC and Zbrush exist to cater for Hobbyists, Obviously MB was designed for Weta users so it’s meant to have that professional edge that most hobbyists would generally give up for mortage payments, and diapers… :slight_smile:

Mudbox 1 was fine for most users. For my uses, I’ll stick to MB1 for sculpturing and paint and sculpture in 3d Coat 3.0. Just my 2 cents.

I think that’s good advice for most Hobbyists… ZB and 3DC offer far more bang for buck with most of what MB and others can do, So it tends to make good sense for everyone except hardcore users of the tools.

#23

3DC may not have the hugest user base yet (it’s only a year old) but I know at least a couple of pros who use it in TV and games. My current volumetric model is about 15.5 mil triangles, which is of course about 31 mil. quads like MB uses. It works nicely, especially if you hide parts of the model you’re not using. Of course you could always get nearly infinite detail if you switch from voxel mode back to the old method.

#24

What are your other computer specs? I’m running an Athlon 64 X2 4400, win xp, 3 Gb ram, ATI Radeon HD 3670 512Mb video card. I’m beginning to think that it’s my ATI video card-NVIDIA seems to beat ATI for 3D stuff every time. While I can’t afford a $1500 Quattro card, I could afford say an NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra 768mb for around $150. Would I see a big improvement on my system?

Right now if I subdivide a basic sphere in MB2, them add a material and do a small amount of painting, the system stops and the image goes white. It looks like the system is being overloaded.

I think you need to recheck your opinion… :slight_smile: MB09 destroys 3DC in terms of performance, and in workflow, they are the only two things MB09 does better than the competition IMO.

Uh-no, not on my system right now. 3dC 3 Alpha has way better performance than MB2 on any given system. I agree that MB2 has a nice workflow. However, Andrew has hired an interface designer to re-design the 3dCoat interface for the 3.0 final.

I’m glad that pro tools that achieve workflow and performance like MB exist where others only add features.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, MB2 is great, but I think a lot more effort should have been made by Autodesk to let people know what was required to use MB2 in a reasonable, workable fashion. MB1 just required a pretty average system; MB2 requires a top end system. Folks get mighty ticked off when they buy software that they can’t use. I used the demo first, so I’m ok.

I agree but that’s why Silo, Blender, 3DC and Zbrush exist to cater for Hobbyists, Obviously MB was designed for Weta users so it’s meant to have that professional edge that most hobbyists would generally give up for mortage payments, and diapers… :slight_smile:

But that wasn’t made very clear, that’s the point! :slight_smile:

[quote]
ZB and 3DC offer far more bang for buck with most of what MB and others can do,

ZB? That would cost me $739.28 Cdn. Besides I’m not into highly convoluted and quirky workflows. No thanks to that! :slight_smile:

Cheers

#25

Voxel doodling at 16-17m triangles (32-34m quads). Not really any fancy modeling, just doodling with a couple different tools. The video recording may have slowed it down a little.

Edit: Sorry had to remove video, was reaching my Jing bandwidth limit.

#26

Sorry if I am 1/2 asleep here, but what was the point of your post? I really don’t understand. Were you just trying to show what 3d Coat can do?

#27

Yes that’s all, just showing that it’s quite capable of working with a high poly count, even though CUDA has not yet been implemented.

#28

Ok, I’m awake now and see your vid link.

So nearly 17 million triangles? How does this compare to what you can get in MB2? I know it’s only a rough test, but still it’s on the same computer.

Cheers

#29

I don’t know I briefly played with the MB2 demo then it crashed when I tried to paint on my model, after that it would never open again, even after a re-install.

#30

Actually, 3DC 3 alpha runs in 32 bits mode. There will be also a 64 bits version for the release with boosted performances.

I tried Mud 2009 demo (quadro Fx 1500 , latest drivers). can’t even select properly faces to set up the tangent symetry. I’m simply waiting for a Service pack to make up my mind.

#31

Oh…well that’s REAL useful, ain’t it? :slight_smile:

#32

But the 64 bit version will need win xp 64 or vista 64, won’t it? That won’t do me much good on 32 bit.

I tried Mud 2009 demo (quadro Fx 1500 , latest drivers). can’t even select properly faces to set up the tangent symetry. I’m simply waiting for a Service pack to make up my mind.

You have a quadro card and MB2 still wouldn’t work properly? Thanks, I don’t feel so bad now.

Looks like hurry up and wait time: Wait for a MB2 service pack and wait for 3dCoat 3.0 final. They are testing us, I swear! :slight_smile:

Cheers

#33

Hi,

about that video.
At the end of it, where you “physicaly” adding polygons with the clay tool and the 2d paint tool or what?
I have seen a similar function in another tool and that was really cool. So I wonder if its the same here with 3d Coat.

#34

I’m running an 8800gt with 1 gig gpu xp64 with MB09 64 and am still experiencing artifacts,display glitchs and lagging at 1-2 mill faces.:hmm:

2 gigs of ram with 3mhz dual core intel.

#35

Yes many of the tools now let you add “clay” to empty space. The 2D Paint tool will just paint on that 2D plane though. You can change the angle of the plane by rotating the view around, then right-clicking sets it back to screen space. So you could clear out all objects to make an empty scene and then just start from scratch in empty space.

You could just download the alpha and try it for yourself for 15 days. The 64 bit version was just released. I haven’t tried it yet but one user said he got up to 91 million triangles. So that with the upcoming Cuda support should be really awesome.

Edit:
OK Andrew updated again so I’ve got it working now. I was able to get up to 28 mil triangles before the nVidia driver crashed. Here’s a quick little video of a blob with some details on it, totaling about 16mil.
http://screencast.com/t/NQvmjkEXBlD

#36

I am kind of new to all the 3d paint and sculpting apps. I am having a hard time picking one for my needs. I am a Maya user and mostly do hard model texturing. I downloaded trial version of Bodypaint, Zbrush and Mudbox. I rejected Zbrush straight away as their UI is just not for me. Mudbox even on my Quadro 3700 card, 8Gig RAM and Opteron CPU feels bit jerky. I am going through their free tutorials so have not given up on it as it seems kind of promising. Autodesk owning it kind of makes it’s future look secure as well.

Bodypaint I loved as well for it's speed and ease of  texturing hard surface models. 3d coat I have not checked yet.....it seems to have a nice balance between painting and sculpting. I am not sure about it's future though when competing with the likes of Autodesk. 

Anyway I don't know what I am really saying. I just want some guidance as I have been through countless threads on this subject. 

Any advice on what would be best for someone who mainly does hard surface texturing but wants to have sculpting option as well? I have narrowed it down to the following combinations.

- Body paint + Mudbox
- Mudbox only
- 3d coat only

Even though I am trying the trials I would really appreciate any additional thoughts.

#37

Your going to hate this answer but Zbrush and Photoshop, or just Photoshop…

#38

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.